1. MQXF Quench Protection Analysis HiLumi workshop – KEK, Tsukuba Vittorio Marinozzi 11/18/2014

2. 2 Aperture diameter150 mm Gradient140 T/m Maximum length2 x 4 m Nominal current17500 A Magnetic stored energy (2 x 4m)12 MJ Inductance8.3 mH/m Conductor peak field12.2 T Operating temperature1.9 K Strand diameter0.850 mm Bare cable width16.638 mm Bare cable thin/thick edge thickness 1.462/1.673 mm Insulation thickness0.150 mm Strand Number40 Copper/non-copper ratio1.2 Copper RRR  100 Critical parameters make the protection study very challenging 0.1 Introduction MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi

3. 3 Contents: 1.MQXF standard conservative protection study 2.Inter-Filament-Coupling-Currents (IFCC) effects on the differential inductance 3.MQXF protection study considering dynamic effects

4. 4 MQXF standard conservative protection study MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi

5. 5 1.1 MQXF conservative study Hot spot temperature very close to the upper limit of 350 K [1] Protection heaters only on the outer layer Protection improvements:  Designing protection heaters on the inner layer [2]  Improving the protection simulation using less pessimistic assumptions [1] G. Manfreda et al., “Quench Protection Study of the Nb 3 Sn Low-β Quadrupole for the LHC Luminosity Upgrade” IEEE Trans. on Appl. Supercond., vol. 24, no.3, June 2014. [2] M. Marchevsky, "Design optimization and testing of the protection heaters for the LARP high-field Nb3Sn quadrupoles", presented at ASC2014. MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi

6. 6 Inter-Filament- Coupling-Currents (IFCC) effects on the differential inductance MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi

7. 7 2.1 Inductance reduction for high dI/dt MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi HQ simulation using the nominal inductance, experimentally measured at low dI/dt (<50 A/s) [1]  There is an evident disagreement, starting from the very beginning  Similar behavior has been experimentally observed in various HQ and LQ decays  It is not due to quench back, because of its suddenness  It has benefic effects on the protection, therefore its simulation in MQXF could be very useful  The explanation has been investigated as an electromagnetic coupling with Inter- Filament-Coupling-Currents (IFCC) in the strand, due to high dI/dt, which causes a considerable inductance reduction [1] H. Bajas et al., “Cold Test Results of the LARP HQ Nb3Sn quadrupole magnet at 1.9 K”. Presented at the Applied Superconductivity Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2012. R d =60m Ω No PH ~100 kA/s R d =60m Ω No PH ~100 kA/s

8. 8 2.2 IFCC as magnetization currents MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi  The differential inductance can be computed as: Static inductance Magnetic susceptibility related to IFCC  Under exponential assumptions, the magnetic susceptibility related to the IFCC can be computed as: [1] M. N. Wilson, “Superconducting Magnets”, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1983. [2] L. Rossi and M. Sorbi, “QLASA: A computer code for quench simulation in adiabatic multicoil superconducting windings”, Nat. Inst. of Nucl. Phys. (INFN), Rome, Italy, Tech. Rep. TC-04-13,2004.  This model has been implemented in QLASA [2]

9. 9 2.3 HQ simulation MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi ~30%  Considering dynamic effects allows to simulate well the experimental decay from the very beginning to t=~15 ms  In this decay, the MIITs produced considering dynamic effects are ~20% less then using nominal inductance  The disagreement after 15 ms could be due to quench back

10. 10 2.4 IFCC and quench back MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi Quench back after 10 ms together with dynamic effects allow to reproduce the decay until its end Conclusions:  Both quench back and dynamic effects are needed in order to reproduce the decay until the end  Quench back alone is not enough  QLASA cannot predict the time of quench back occurring, but it can now predict the inductance reduction due to dynamic effects. Improvement of QLASA is under way.

11. 11 MQXF protection study considering dynamic effects MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi

12. 12 3.1 MQXF inner-layer quench heaters MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi In order to improve the protection, various quench heaters for the inner layer have been designed [1]  The protection heaters are designed in order to avoid as best as possible the damages coming from helium bubbles [1] M. Marchevsky, "Design optimization and testing of the protection heaters for the LARP high-field Nb3Sn quadrupoles", presented at ASC2014.

13. 13 3.2 MQXF protection scheme MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi Dumping resistance48 mΩ Maximum voltage to ground800 V Voltage threshold100 mV Validation time10 ms Heaters delay time from firing (inner layer) (CoDHA) [1] 12 ms Heaters delay time from firing (outer layer) (CoDHA) [1] 16 ms [1] T. Salmi et al., “A Novel Computer Code for Modeling Quench Protection Heaters in High-Field Nb3Sn Accelerator Magnets”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. vol 24, no 4, 2014.

14. 14 3.3 MQXF protection with IL-PH MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi No inner layer PHInner Layer PH 35.5 MA 2 s32.8 MA 2 s 330 K290 K  The MQXF hot spot temperature decreases of ~40 K inserting inner layer protection heaters Open question: Are these protection heaters reliable for helium bubbles issue?  Dynamic effects are not yet considered in these simulations

15. 15 3.4 MQXF protection considering IFCC MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi No inner layer PH No inner layer PH+ IFCC Inner Layer PH Inner Layer PH + IFCC 35.5 MA 2 s34.2 MA 2 s32.8 MA 2 s31.3 MA 2 s 330 K (365 K) 306 K (342 K) 290 K (311 K) 266 K (288 K)  IFCC dynamic effects decrease the MQXF hot spot temperature of ~25 K. The effect is therefore appreciable  The hot spot temperature is enough below the designed limit (350 K) also in the case of no inner-layer protection heaters, considering IFCC dynamic effects (306 K). Anyway this case does not ensure protection redundancy (342 K)  Further improvements could come from quench back, which has not been considered (work in progress) The numbers between parenthesis are referred to a failure of half of the heaters

16. 16 MQXF Quench Protection Analysis – Vittorio Marinozzi Conclusions:  Previous standard conservative works on the MQXF protection did not ensure the magnet safety.  Protection has been improved designing protection heaters for the inner layer. This improvement gives a margin of additional 40 K in the hot spot temperature.  The IL-PH suffer the helium bubbles issue.  An electromagnetic model for the IFCC has been developed and validated with HQ experimental data in order to compute the inductance reduction during fast decays.  The IFCC model has been applied for the MQXF protection study. It gives additional 25 K margin in hot spot temperature. A further improvement could come from quench back.  Both IFCC dynamic effects and IL-PH ensure the magnet safety and redundancy.  Another possible solution could be to use CLIQ together with outer layer PH. This analysis is under study.